536 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



tleory," Mr. Heddon or myself. Mr. 

 Ilutchinson says: 'ILis Mr. F. so 

 soon forgotten that Mr. Heddon re- 

 ported, about :i year and a half ago, 

 iKHv he (Heddon) produced (MarrlKPa 

 at will, by feeding stores well mixed 

 witli flour for pollen V" Has Mr. 

 Hutchinson " so soon forgotten "' that 

 1 reported, more than three years ago, 

 that I had produced bee diarrluea by 

 feeding tlour mixed with winter 

 stores? If he has. I will ask him to 

 turn to Gleanings. Vol. IX, page ISO, 

 under date of' March 14, 1881, the 

 article is headeil, "Pollen and its 

 Relation to Dysentery."" Xow. if he 

 will turn to page '.T-' of the same vol- 

 ume, and towards tlie last of his arti- 

 cle, Mr. Heddon writes on May 11, 

 1881, "I, this morning, received a 

 letter from Mr. Shuck, and he sug- 

 gests the idea that vegetable matter 

 is t)ie cause of the trouble, etc." 

 Now. notice dates and see who has 

 priority, between Mr. Heddon and 

 myself. " Honor to whom honor is 

 diie "' 



In my article referred to in Olean- 

 iruj.t. I refer to the Robinson letter, 

 which letter will be found on page 151 

 of the same volume, and to him I 

 think the honor is due of first dis- 

 covering the " pollen theory." 



Again, let us turn to Mr. Hutchin- 

 son "s article. A little further on he 

 says, '■ And why Mr. F. should con- 

 sider his the ' first ' experiment is be- 

 yond my comprehension." I did not 

 consider my experiment the '" first."" 

 neiilier did I say so. nor intimate such 

 a thing. I stated that I had made 

 sucli an experiment, and gave the 

 result. Again he says, " Mr. F.'s ex- 

 periment resulted in exactly what 

 Messrs. A. B. Mason, Kohnke, Oat- 

 man, Heddon, myself, and many 

 others would willingly have staked 

 our reputation upon lliat it would." 

 And what is that '? That it shows 

 that where there is pollen there is 

 diarrhtea. and where there is no pol- 

 len there is no diarrhtea. 



Why did not Mr. Hutchinson, and 

 the many others he speaks of. do 

 something, as well as Mr. Heddon. to 

 prove what the cause of the disease 

 in qnestion is, if they could risk so 

 much as he says? "Surely. I think 

 there is no question now before the 

 American bee keepers of any greater 

 importance than this one of bee- 

 diarrhwa. Again, Mr. H. says. "But 

 because Mr. Pond put him (Fraden- 

 bnrg) in mind of it, it is simply pre- 

 posterous that he sliould claim the 

 honor of priority."" To this I will 

 say. that from .Tan. 31 to the day I 

 wrote my report, it was scarcely ever 

 out of my mind day or night. I have 

 been awake many "a time more than 

 half of the night thinking of the 

 subject in all its lights. I tliink that 

 Mr, Pond will say that he received a 

 friendly note from me, long before 

 spring, saying that I had found the 

 cause of bee-disease; at least I mailed 

 such a note to him. 



Mr. T. S. Russell, Secretary of the 

 Ohio State Cider-Makers' Association 

 of Ada. O.. can tell yon what I told 

 him while riding in the cars from 

 Dayton to Springfield, last March, 

 that I had discovered the cause of 



the terrible bee-disease, and that it 

 would be worth thousands of dollars 

 to bee-keepers i and Mr. A. I. Root 

 can tell you that I wrote the same, in 

 substance, to him about the same 

 time. I can name others who I have 

 told about the same thing. Xow, is 

 it not strange that Mr. Pcmd should 

 just happen to " put me in mind of 

 it," to claim the honor of priority. 



In regard to the Editor's comments. 

 First he says, "Mr. Fradenburg"s 

 assertion that he is the discoverer of 

 the " pollen theory '" is. of course, not 

 proven— merely as.serted.'" Of that 

 error I have already spoken. X'ext. 

 he says. " He only' claims to liave 

 started his experiments • last fall." "" 

 There again he is in error. I did not 

 state when I had " first started "" my 

 experiments. If he will turn to page 

 308 of Gleanings, for June. 1883, he 

 will see my report of a similar ex- 

 periment : but in that I did not state 

 that 9 iniclei had no pollen, but that 

 was the case. I did not claim much 

 for that experiment, as that was a 

 mild winter, and for that reason the 

 cry would have been raised that I 

 could not do it again, or in a cold 

 winter. 



I cannot find any report from Mr. 

 Heddon on this subject during the 

 year 1883. In 1882 I find the flour 

 experiment only. Xow comes the 

 last question, " Who first discovered 

 and gave to bee-keepers the ' cause ' 

 of bee-diarrhtea 'r"' Away back in 

 my article, already referred to, of 

 March 14, 1881, I gave a very little 

 evidence in that direction : and at 

 that time I asked this question, which 

 has never yet been answered in the 

 affirmative : " Can any bee-keeper 

 who reads this show that a single 

 colony of bees has ever had dysen- 

 tery when they have had no pollen 

 at all ■:""' But the discovery that I 

 base my claim upon, was made on 

 Jan. 31,1884, and the report was written 

 on May 12 and published June 11 ; and 

 Mr. Ileddon's discovery was made 

 in early spring when he unpacked his 

 bee.s — report written .June 9 and pub- 

 lished June 2-5. 



Xow, if it was a patentable inven- 

 tion, and both Mr. Heddon and my- 

 self should apply for a patent at the 

 same time, the patent laws and rules 

 would most assuredly award the 

 patent to me. A few words more and 

 I have done. My proofs have been 

 questioned for an illustration : Sup- 

 pose a mess of potatoes should be 

 cooked, and arsenic be put in with 

 them and then given to 4.5 persons to 

 eat, and they should all be taken sick; 

 then, again,"another mess of the same 

 potatoes taken out of the same lot 

 should be cooked and given to 14 per- 

 sons, without any arsenic, and they 

 should not be "sick ; now. who i"s 

 there among you that will not say at 

 once that it" was the arsenic that 

 caused the sickness ? Is not my re- 

 port a parallel case? But one says 

 that is no poof because bees had been 

 wintered with pollen and no sickness 

 either. True ; but hold on, I have 

 taken arsenic into my mouth and 

 swallowed it, and it did not make me 

 sick either, but that does not prove 

 that arsenic is not poison. 



I think that bee-keepers owe many 

 thanks to Mr. Heddon for his numer- 

 ous, valuable articles and good hints 

 which he has given them. I do not 

 ask for a single item that justiv be- 

 longs to him. or any one else. I will 

 now leave this matter in the hands of 

 the many fair-minded bee-keepers of 

 our land, and fully trust tlwt they 

 will give " Honor to whom honor is 

 due."' 



Port Washington, Ohio. 



[We give the above article a place 

 in the Bee .Journal in order for Mr. 

 Fradenburg to give the proof of his- 

 assertion about the discovery of the 

 cause of bee-diarrhiea. In reply we 

 shall only notice his reference to us 

 in the last paragraph but three. We 

 based our remarks about his experi- 

 ments upon his own article as pub- 

 lished on page 374. where he attempted 

 to give his proofs ; and there he said 

 nothing of any experiments being 

 made prior to " last fall." We should 

 not be cited to other papers for proof 

 when he attempts to give such proof 

 in this paper.— Ed.] 



For the American Bee JoumaL 



Honey-Dew— "What is it? 



W. C. K. KEMP. 



In the Bee .Journ.vl for Aug. 6, 

 tlie Editor cautions honey-producers 

 against selling " so-called honey- 

 dew," and warns them, in very 

 earnest language, of the damaging 

 effect it will be likely to have on colo- 

 nies which have been so unfortunate 

 as to fill their hives with the vile 

 "stuff." 



Xearly all writers on this subject 

 designate this mysterious substance 

 as the product of insects called 

 aphidse or plant-lice. That it comes 

 from any such source, I do not for a 

 moment believe. Prof. Cook to the 

 contrary notwithstanding. That the 

 Professor may have found plant-lice 

 where he found honey-dew I do not 

 dispute ; but does he give satisfactory 

 evidence, or in any way show that 

 these or any other insects produced 

 it V Because both were found on the 

 same leaf, and at the same time, is 

 not evidence that one produced the 

 other, or that one cannot exist with- 

 out the other. As well might he say, 

 that because a honeybee and a drop 

 of nectar were in the same flower, 

 that the bee produced the nectar. I 

 am no botanist, nor do I make any 

 pretensions to scientific lore, but "I 

 have studied something about this 

 lioneydew, and will give some of the 

 " reasons for the faith that is in me." 



I have seen lioney-dew in great 

 abundance on the leaves of certain 

 trees when under a powerful micro- 

 scope, and there were no insects to 

 be discovered. That insects infest 

 the leaves of nearly all kinds of trees 

 and plants, that the leaves of only 

 certain kinds of trees produce honey- 

 dew, and also that honey-dew is 



